Thesis

When you tune in to the Olympics, do you realize that the Bible has shaped what you’re watching? It’s a little known fact that in the 19th century, Christian principles, informed by Scripture, helped shift the West’s attention from cruel sports like cock-fighting and bear-baiting to mass spectator sports like rugby, soccer, cricket, and tennis. A result of this development is the popularity of the modern Olympic Games. As one British historian put it, the rise of spectator sports together with the widespread establishment of new public parks and sports grounds “contributed to the emancipation of the body and mind of millions.”
The evangelical revival of the late 18th and early 19th centuries created a new social and sporting ethic based on the idea that vigorous outdoor recreation was not only vital to the mental and physical health of Britain’s growing urban population, but that it also provided an opportunity for improving moral and social attitudes by developing an ethos of “team spirit” and “sportsmanship.” Sports, it was argued, could be used as a vehicle for inculcating self-discipline, combating personal selfishness, and transcending class divisions. Influenced by these ideas, Christians were actively involved in the development of sports both as patrons and players.
By the 1800s, a new attitude about sports emerged as part of a worldview that came to be known as “muscular Christianity”—popularized by British Christian writers Charles Kingsley (1819-1875) and Thomas Hughes (1822-1896). Hughes wrote in his novel Tom Brown at Oxford that “a man’s body is given him to be trained and brought into subjection, and then used for the protection of the weak, the advancement of all righteous causes, and the subduing of the earth.” Clearly this was an attitude drawn from the Bible, for Hughes echoes 1 Corinthians 9:27 (“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway”) and Genesis 1:28 (where God told man to “subdue” the earth). Additionally, protecting the weak and advancing righteousness are themes scattered across the Old the New Testaments.
Buttressed by a biblical understanding of recreation, sports like soccer, cricket, rugby, and golf took off in the UK. Following Britain’s example, muscular Christianity spread to other countries, appearing in the US, for instance, first in the private schools and then in the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) where it led to the invention of basketball and volleyball.
Modern sports may not have attained their honorable and prominent status in society if not for a group of British Christians who took their Bibles in hand as they thought about athletic competition. Yet sad to say, few who watch or participate in sports around the world today realize how much they owe to Scripture’s influence.
——————————Note: A version of this article was originally published in Kairos Journal and posted on the BibleMesh blog in August 2012.

As Clement looked around his cosmopolitan city, the open displays of transgenderism broke his heart. Grown men wore bleach-blonde feminine hairstyles, donned see-through women’s clothing, smelled of perfume, and had their bodies shaved in public salons where passersby could observe the spectacle. Though males biologically, these men “detest[ed] the bloom of manliness,” as Clement put it.[1]Clement might well have lived in 21st-century London, Amsterdam, New York, or Los Angeles. But he didn’t. Clement was a theologian along the Egyptian coast during the second century AD, and his experience was not atypical. Though the term “transgenderism” was not coined until the 1960s,[2] the phenomenon has existed for millennia—individuals who feel drawn to present themselves as the opposite gender. At times such behavior in the ancient world was coupled with homosexual acts, and at other times it was practiced by those who would be described as bisexual today.[3] Yet from ancient Mesopotamia to the Greek and Roman Empires, instances of gender confusion are well documented.
During Old Testament times, the Mesopotamian text Erra and Ishum described men “who changed their masculinity into femininity” as part of worshiping the fertility goddess Ishtar.[4] In the intertestamental period, the Greek playwright Aristophanes dubbed one character in his play Women at Thesmophoria a “man-woman”—presumably reflective of people he had encountered in real life—and noted, “What contradictions his life shows! A lyre and a hair-net! A wrestling school oil flask and a girdle! What could be more contradictory? What relation has a mirror to a sword? And you yourself, who are you? Do you pretend to be a man?”
By the first century AD, the Jewish philosopher Philo, who lived in Egypt, could point to “men-women” who “altered the impression of their natural manly appearance into the resemblance of a woman” and were “willingly driven into the appearance and treatment of licentious women.”[5] The first- and second-century Roman satirist Juvenal spoke of “the effeminate,” who “in their homes put long fillets [hair ribbons] round their brows” and “swathe themselves with necklaces.” Some used “damp soot” as eye makeup and tied up “long locks” in hairnets.[6] Priests of the Roman cult of Cybele were initiated through a ceremony involving self-castration.[7]
The second-century Stoic philosopher Epictetus remarked to one young man, “Are you a man or a woman? A man. Then adorn yourself as a man, not as a woman.” He added that a “man to be seen who would rather be a woman” is “a scandalous show.”[8] Clement of Alexandria’s prescription for such behavior was representative of many Christian, Jewish, and pagan writers of his time: It “must be driven as far as possible from our society.”[9]
In light of these ancient sources, contemporary followers of Jesus should not be fooled by claims that transgenderism marks the advancement of society or the culmination of movements to celebrate diversity. Of course, some might turn this around and argue that being ancient makes the practice normative. Yet such an argument falls short logically and biblically, for murder and slavery were also ancient practices, and few would claim they are morally legitimate. Far from demonstrating the moral virtue of transgenderism, its ancient roots underscore the reality that with sin, there is truly nothing new under the sun. Since Old Testament times, some men and women have responded sinfully to a psychological struggle related to their gender. Just as in Clement of Alexandra’s day, Christians today should grieve over the spiritual and emotional brokenness of these people and compassionately invite them to repent and experience the renewing grace of Christ.
———————————————
Endnotes[1] Clement of Alexandria, Paedegogos 3.3.16, 21. Quoted in S. Donald Fortson III and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 290-91.[2] See John F. Oliven, Sexual Hygiene and Pathology (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1965), 514.[3] Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 291.[4]Erra and Ishum IV. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 234.[5] Philo, Special Laws 1.325. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 286.[6] Juvenal, Satire II, lines 82-99. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 288.[7] Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 288.[8] Epictetus, Discourses 3.1. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 290.[9] Clement of Alexandria, Paedegogos 3.3.19. Quoted in Fortson and Grams, Unchanging Witness, 291.

With resurgent Islam extending its power throughout the world—whether through immigration, procreation, litigation, intimidation, or terrorism—the Church must respond for the sake of truth, righteousness, and, indeed, civilization. Of course, truth and righteousness are already in short supply in the West. Decadence is proceeding apace, and unless there is spiritual awakening in the land, Islam will reign by default. The only hope is a rebirth of holiness, a rediscovery of spiritual boldness, and a renewal of spiritual power. Of course, in all this, the Church must lead:First, repentance must once again characterize the people of God. This will not be easy since, as Reinhold Niebuhr observed, “Proud men and successful civilizations find it difficult to know God, because they are particularly tempted to make themselves God.”1Second, the Church must invest herself in the good work of making disciples as well as converts. For one thing, the Church must once again catechize believers in the faith.Third, individual heroes of the faith must step forward, for God still searches for a man. A man, that is, who will “stand in the gap” (Ezek. 22:30 NIV).Fourth, the people of God must once again walk in the power of the resurrection of Jesus and embrace the sacrificial way of the cross. Such was the selfless witness of the early Church.Fifth, Christians must come together as a body to meet the challenge. Not dwelling on the issues that divide them, believers must remember Jesus’ prayer that they “may be one” (John 17:22).Sixth, godly confidence must displace fear and doubt. The Bible promises that Christ’s kingdom will prevail, and the Lord repeatedly counsels His followers, “Fear not!”
Thus prepared, and filled with the Holy Spirit, the Church can begin to meet the challenge of Islam effectively. Here are some possibilities which a local congregation might use:

Courses of study on the scripture, history, and current manifestations of Islam.

Intentional outreach and direct evangelism so that Muslim neighbors may learn of Christ.

A network of similarly motivated pastors and churches for mutual support and counsel.

Use of various communication resources. Using the Church’s wealth of talents, contacts, spiritual gifts, and platforms.

Earnest prayer. The Church’s most potent weapon.

The power of a holy, obedient, prophetic, and praying Church is incalculable. Nothing could match the splendor and fruitfulness of a repentant and revived body of believers. In reality, the spiritual vacuum now tormenting the West will be filled by something—if not with the glory of the living God, then with oppressive secularism or Islamic legalism. Yes, to meet these adversaries, it will take sacrifice, not only of resources, but also of comfort and safety. But sacrifice is the watchword of a people who meet, with all hopefulness, at the foot of the cross.2
————————————–
Endnotes1 Reinhold Niebuhr, “The Christian Church in a Secular Age,” in Christianity and Power Politics (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1940), 212.2“Resurgent Islam and the Challenge to the Church,”Kairos Journal KJOP-01, 2006, 14.

When the film Rebel without a Cause came out in 1955, it touched a nerve. Warner Brothers advertised it as a “challenging drama of today’s juvenile violence.” It featured three rising young actors—James Dean (as Jim), Natalie Wood (as Judy), and Sal Mineo (as Plato)—each portraying troubled teens responding to their fathers’ insufficiencies. Jim’s father was spineless, Judy’s, cruelly strict, while Plato’s father was absent. World War II reminded America of the importance of a father’s presence, but Americans spent the next decade—with dramas like Rebel without a Cause and comedies like Ozzie and Harriet—asking the question, “What’s a dad to do?” We still suffer as a culture for lack of understanding the role of a faithful father.Hebrews 12 was not written as a prescription for earthly fathers, as much as its wisdom might apply to them. Rather, it was an exhortation to suffering Christians to cling to their heavenly Father. The author of the epistle pointed out that the trials, hardships, and difficulties Christians experience should sometimes be understood as an expression of God’s discipline—discipline that is ultimately for the believer’s spiritual welfare.
Sadly, when English speakers hear the word “discipline,” punishment most often comes to mind. But the Greek word can mean, more broadly, “guidance for proper living.” Biblically speaking, then, discipline is often as much about tender formation as it is about firm correction. When believers suffer for bearing the name of Christ, they need not conclude God has abandoned them or that He is punishing them for some wrong done—far from it! Trials only affirm that God is forging fidelity in the recesses of their hearts. Or, as the author of Hebrews put it, even though “for the moment” all discipline seems painful, it eventually “yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (v. 11). In other words, the fruits of discipline form faithful Christians!
Like any loving father, God uses the means of both formative and corrective discipline to help Christians more fully reflect the character of Jesus. Sanctification, the process whereby God brings his children to spiritual maturity, is a sometimes painful experience. Mature Christians come to recognize that the trials and difficulties they experience are not evidence of God’s arbitrariness, anger, or absenteeism. Instead, they understand that every trial is a manifestation of His love. Those He loves, He disciplines (v. 6).
What’s a dad to do? Dads dare to discipline. As a faithful Father, the Lord disciplines His children through many and various trials, tests, and corrections. The reality of the Christian life is that discipline is a part of discipleship. Helping individuals and congregations understand the shaping role of discipline is a crucial component of Christian leadership. Perceptive counseling can assist Christians to see the events in their lives as palpable evidences of the Father’s love and turn whining into gratitude and fickleness into faithfulness. In the process, those who understand the discipline of the Lord might even one day become better parents themselves!

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27 (ESV)

In April 2016, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that public schools may not discriminate against students on the basis of gender identity. Ruling in favor of a Virginia transgender student identified in court documents only as G.G., two judges on a three-judge panel held that schools may not segregate students into separate restrooms and locker rooms on the basis of biological sex alone. Within their ruling, the judges noted the supposed “limitations of a nonmalleable, binary conception of sex.” They also criticized the alleged limitations of “connot[ing] male and femaleness . . . by reference to the factors . . . termed ‘biological sex,’ namely reproductive organs.” [i] Standing in stark contrast to the judges’ opinion is Genesis 1:28, where gender is defined in a strikingly biological, “binary,” and “nonmalleable” way.
This verse employs Hebrew words for male (zakar) and female (neqeba) with distinctly biological connotations. Zakar likely had an original meaning of being sharp and thus came to reference the male anatomy, and by extension, the male gender.[ii]Neqeba, in contrast, derives from a term referencing a hole or cavity and thus came to signify the female gender.[iii] The anatomical references of the terms are intentional here, for they speak of sexual distinction among humans and set the stage for God’s command in the following verse to “be fruitful and multiply.” Indeed, humans are the only creatures whose binary gender distinction is noted in Genesis 1. This does not deny or obscure gender distinctions among animals but highlights the goodness and God-given character of human gender. In fact, gender helps constitute humans in the image of God in humankind.
For this reason, Scripture elsewhere condemns the blurring of gender distinctions. For example, Deuteronomy 22:5 states that “a woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.” The abiding principle, with different applications in various cultures, is that women should not attempt to look like men and vice versa. Similarly in the New Testament, Paul tells the Corinthians that when praying or prophesying in public worship, men and women should don attire appropriate to their respective genders (1 Corinthians 11:4-10). The norm for God’s people is to celebrate and not obscure God-given gender distinctions.
The biblical teaching is a marked departure from modern notions that gender is merely chosen, felt, or can be “reassigned” surgically. Gender is assigned by God, and it displays His marvelous creativity. Of course, in a fallen world there are tragic instances in which people experience feelings of dissatisfaction regarding their God-given genders. And some are born with both male and female sex organs or with irregular configurations of their sex chromosomes. But far from overturning traditional classifications of gender, these unfortunate conditions underscore the goodness of the God-assigned norm: “Male and female he created them.”
Given the pervasive challenge to this conception of gender, Christians have a responsibility to educate themselves regarding the biblical and medical realities, and take a stand when governments or businesses attempt to dismiss biological gender distinctions as discriminatory or degrading. Human happiness and even survival depend on embracing maleness and femaleness.[i]G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, Case No. 15-2056 (4th Cir. 2016).[ii]The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1906), s.v. “zakar.”[iii] Ibid., s.v. “nequeba.”

The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society’s most recent issue (March 2016) contains an article on the Greek verbal system by three contributors to BibleMesh’s Greek courses. The article, coauthored by Nicholas J. Ellis, Michael G. Aubrey, and Mark Dubis, is titled “The Greek Verbal System and Aspectual Prominence: Revising Our Taxonomy and Nomenclature.” (Download here.)
This article describes BibleMesh’s approach to the Greek verbal system, particularly as advanced in our Greek courses. Building on the insights of D. S. Bhat, who argues that languages can give prominence to either tense, aspect, or mood, Ellis, Aubrey, and Dubis argue that the morphology of Greek provides important evidence that Greek is an aspect-prominent language, though one that also incorporates tense within the indicative mood. Aspect can take three distinct forms in Greek: perfective, imperfective, and combinative. Aspect describes a situation’s internal temporal structure. For example, “he ate” is perfective in aspect, being presented as a simple whole, with no reference to anything that happened between the initiation and conclusion of the event. By way of contrast, “he was eating” is imperfective, describing a situation as being in process. “He has eaten” is combinative, describing a complex situation in which a perfective event (“he ate”) leads to a situation with ongoing results or relevance (e.g., the resulting relevance of having eaten previously may well be that no additional food is presently needed).
Using an extensive series of tables, Ellis, Aubrey, and Dubis walk readers through Greek’s verbal system and demonstrate that Greek has a simpler and more straightforward organization than that which appears in traditional Greek grammars. Instead of being organized by the traditional six principal parts (present, future, aorist, perfect, perfect middle, and aorist passive), Greek’s fundamental arrangement is around its three aspects. Indeed, most of Greek’s verbal paradigms (that is, the nonindicative paradigms) make no use of tense, employing only aspect. It is only in the indicative mood that tense is layered on top of Greek’s fundamental aspectual organization, with the presence of the augment distinguishing past from nonpast forms. The resulting analysis of the indicative mood (in the active voice of the ω conjugation) is as follows[1]:[1] Note that the combinative subjunctive and optative are left blank since they do not appear with distinct grammaticalized forms.
The above chart displays that regular perfective forms share a σ (or sometimes a κ, as with the “kappa aorists”); this σ is an “aspect marker” for perfective aspect (not a tense formative!). The imperfective forms share an unmarked lexical core (though in the μι conjugation, imperfective forms are explicitly marked by reduplication, e.g., the δι in δίδωμι). Ellis, Aubrey, and Dubis dub the final aspect as “combinative” since it derives from a typical combination of imperfective and perfective aspect markers (both reduplication as an imperfective aspect marker and a κ as a perfective aspect marker). Since these combinative forms describe a past completed action with ongoing results or relevance, this morphological combination of aspect markers is not surprising: the past completed action is naturally referred to by the perfective aspect marker and the ongoing results or relevance of that completed action are naturally referred to by the imperfective aspect marker.
In each of the three aspects, the lexical core along with its aspect markers constitute the aspect stem. Thus all of the forms of λύω in the chart above can be broken down into three aspect stems: the perfective λυσ, the imperfective λυ, and the combinative λελυκ. With the inclusion of an augment, the indicative forms of these three aspects subdivide into past and non-past forms. Thus aorist and future indicatives are both perfective, present and imperfect indicatives are both imperfective, and perfect and pluperfect forms are both combinative.
The full article applies this aspectual analysis in greater depth to μι conjugation verbs as well as middle-passive forms (which, following Carl Conrad, are viewed as a single voice encompassing both middle and passive functions, so that Greek has only two instead of three voices).
The significance of this article is at least twofold. First, Greek grammar has a simpler organizational structure than that which appears in traditional Greek grammars, and a realization of this (and a corresponding restructuring of Greek paradigms) makes Greek easier for professors to teach and easier for students to learn. Second, some traditional grammatical labels misconstrue the true structure of Greek, particularly those that treat Greek as though it were, like English, a tense-prominent language (e.g., the use of “present” outside of the indicative mood or the use of “tense formative” for morphemes that are really aspect markers). Consequently, we need to reform our descriptive labels and our general conception of Greek accordingly. In doing so, we will see the simplicity and beauty of the Greek verb for what it is and, more importantly, we will be better equipped to interpret the message of the New Testament without imposing the alien constraints of our own language upon it.
To download the full article, click the following bibliographical link:Nicholas J. Ellis, Michael G. Aubrey, and Mark Dubis. “The Greek Verbal System and Aspectual Prominence: Revising Our Taxonomy and Nomenclature.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59/1 (2016): 33–62.
To see descriptions of BibleMesh’s Greek courses, go to http://biblemesh.com/course-partner/biblical-languages-courses.